Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Abduljabar v. Apfel, Commissioner, 99-1620 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1620 Visitors: 28
Filed: Oct. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1620 MUHAMMED ABDULJABAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Daniel E. Klein, Jr., Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-2193-DKC) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 18, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1620 MUHAMMED ABDULJABAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Daniel E. Klein, Jr., Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-2193-DKC) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 18, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan M. Perlman, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Arthur J. Fried, General Counsel, Charlotte Hardnett, Principal Deputy General Counsel, John M. Sacchetti, As- sociate General Counsel, George G. Davidson, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Muhammed Abduljabar appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security on Abduljabar’s claim for disability insurance benefits.* Having re- viewed the briefs and the administrative record, we find that sub- stantial evidence supported the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision denying benefits. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Abduljabar v. Apfel, CA-98-2193-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 8, 1999). Additionally, we note that the ALJ’s opin- ion properly assessed Abduljabar’s credibility and accurately considered the evidence of Abduljabar’s attention deficit disorder. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magis- trate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1994). 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer